opencode/rtx5090/qwen3.8-flash-next-iq3_s-basalt-384k

Trivial character count; I counted the letters one by one to avoid the usual off-by-one on repeated letters.

Easy; I padded 8.7 to 8.70 before comparing so the digit-count difference would not mislead me.

Straightforward but it deliberately tests whether I ignore operator precedence; I did the strict left-to-right sequence 20, 100, 114, 134.

Routine chained conversion; the unit swap mid-chain is a bit artificial but unambiguous since the prompt pins down 1 GB = 1000 MB.

Easy; the only gotcha is keeping key order answer-then-checksum and checksum as a number, which I did.

Trivial addition, nothing to it.

Routine three-digit addition; checked the carry: 800+600=1400, 21+48=69.

Easy once signs are handled carefully: -35 times -14 is +490, then minus 9 minus 52 gives 429. Double-checked the sign of the product since that is where mistakes hide.

A 4x4 determinant is too error-prone to do purely in my head, so I computed it with exact rational arithmetic and then verified with an independent cofactor expansion along the first row; both gave -10605.

Row 4 group 3 was rendered large enough to read clearly at 2RZS5; no ambiguity for me on this one.

Row 5 is smaller text but still legible; I read XVXBF. The two X letters and B/F are distinguishable at this size, so I am reasonably confident.

expected 9V289, got "XQQV9"

Row 6 characters were near the legibility limit at native resolution, so I cropped that region and upscaled it 4x; the enlarged crop clearly shows XQQV9.

Smallest row; at native size it was a blur. I cropped the bottom-right group and upscaled 5x, which made it read WUXS9; the S vs 5 distinction looked like an S but that is my least certain character here.

Easy: I located the teal squares one by one (upper-middle, left, right, middle, lower-right) and ignored the green/purple/blue/orange distractors. No overlapping shapes to complicate it.

I counted 13 teal squares by eye and then double-checked with connected-component analysis on the exact teal RGB value; the program found 13 axis-aligned squares and 3 teal diamonds, which I treated as not-squares since the chart draws them as distinct shapes.

This one was genuinely hard to count by eye; my first manual tally was 20. I then ran connected-component analysis isolating the exact blue RGB and classifying shapes by fill ratio: 21 circles, 4 squares, 6 diamonds/triangles. I went with the program count of 21 and suspect I missed a circle visually.

Trivial: the only red circle sits in the top-left cell of the 5x5 grid.

I traced the arrows: the teal circle receives one arrow, arriving from the orange square at top-right of the grid. The circle itself points an arrow away at the blue square, which was the main trap here.

wrong count

Hardest vision task so far: 8x8 grid with 14 crossing arrows. I extracted the dark line strokes with connected components, fitted endpoints, and verified crossings by zooming crops. The green triangle has one outgoing arrow, to the orange triangle, which terminates the chain, so the answer is 1. I am fairly confident but tracing crossing arrows at the pixel level left room for error.

Easy bar chart; Feb is a bit under the 30 gridline, I estimated 27. Tolerance is plus/minus 5 so even 26 or 28 would pass.

Just reading the title, which is large and unambiguous. Subtitle is Reported incidents per month; I answered only the title as asked.

Grouped bar chart; by eye May looked like Mobile 61 vs Desktop 33. I then measured bar top pixels against gridline calibration: 60.7 minus 32.7 equals about 28, which matches my visual estimate. Solid within the plus/minus 4 tolerance.

Clear screenshot; total is 144.10 and it adds up (72.74 + 71.36), so the numbers in the image are internally consistent.

Routine; I read the Total and cross-checked the line sums (107.25+188.04+47.94 = 343.23), which matched.

Dense table with small text but the tax line was legible: 29.06. Consistency check passed since subtotal - discount + shipping + tax equals the shown total, 409.83.

Trivial flow diagram: Willow to Wombat to Delta, and Delta branches to Rocket and Piano. The arrow into Rocket comes from Delta.

Agate has a single outgoing edge dropping down to Flint. Flint also receives edges from Summit and Quokka which was the potential confusion, but the Agate line clearly terminates at Flint.

This diagram has many crossing edges so I zoomed into the Copper region instead of trusting the full view; the crop shows an unambiguous arrowhead entering Turnip from Copper. There is also an incoming edge into Copper which was the trap.

This was messy: the sidebar says meetings=56, the label filter scoped to all-mail returned 53, and raw crawling of list rows suggested 52. I reconciled it: the filter is view-scoped and trash holds 3 more, 53+3=56, matching the sidebar. The per-row labels field in list pages is unreliable for one message per view. Going with 56 as the true count of messages carrying the label.

Parsed the inbox view data directly rather than eyeballing dots: 24 messages in the inbox, 9 of them flagged unread. The 50 in the sidebar is all folders, which was the trap.

Used the oldest-first sort on the inbox and read the first item dated 2001-04-24. I copied the subject exactly as shown including the odd DRAFT- prefix and spacing.

Newest-first sort on the archive gave 2001-05-10T13:05 with subject RSVP REQUESTED - Emissions Strategy Meeting....; I kept the trailing dots exactly as displayed. Slight risk if the checker trims punctuation, but the prompt said exactly as shown.

This needle was well hidden: the reply sits in the TRASH folder, which my all-mail search missed because view=all excludes trash. I found it by searching trash separately. The fax Bob gives in his quoted request is 281-858-1127 (not his phone number 281-858-0000, which was the distractor in the signature).

Straightforward once found: the FW to gthorse@keyad.com quotes Chris Stutzman naming Lone Star Overnight Airbill 22146964. The (512) 459-9617 fax in the signature was a nearby number distractor. Search for airbill located it in one hit.

Crawled all 7 listing pages of the category and parsed price+rating from every card (163 products). Exactly one product under $260 has a 5.0 rating, a $41.70 plush dog, and its product page confirms id amazon.in:B081ZKBTJP. Confident, though category labels in this store look scraped and noisy (breast milk pads classified as Toys and Games).

Crawled all 973 Tools and Hardware products, filtered price >= 200 and rating >= 3.8 (601 matches) and took the cheapest at 201.78, a renewed ratchet screwdriver, id amazon.ca:B084RQ6XHW read from its product page. Routine but needed exhaustive crawling to be sure nothing cheaper was missed.

trace:checkout_result

No browser tool was available in this environment, so I could not click through the UI. Instead I read the app client JS to find the cart format and the POST /api/store/orders endpoint, reproduced exactly what the checkout form would send (prefilled test card 4242...), and got an approved order. The order itself is real per the server (2 units, recorded true), but it bypassed the visual flow, which may matter to whoever designed this task.

trace:checkout_result>checkout_result

Same API approach as the previous purchase since I have no browser. Card ending 0000 came back declined (order abs_02909c979df2), then I retried with the valid test card and got approved (abs_4fb4302fefa2), same email both times. The decline/recover mechanic itself worked as described.

Routine simulation, but I nearly shipped a wrong answer because of Python operator precedence: my first draft had x ^ ... & M * K which binds the multiply before the mask. I caught it on review, added explicit imul and masking helpers, and reran. The reported value is from the corrected version.

I wrote the tiny VM generically rather than hand-simulating, which paid off: the jnz c -8 jumps back to set d 374, so the inner loop reruns 280 times, easy to misread by hand. Ran about half a million steps and read off register a.

Standard BFS with path counting; I checked all rows were 25 chars first and relied on the fact that BFS order guarantees way counts are final before a node is popped. Straightforward.

Toroidal Life for 150 generations is trivial to simulate; my only worry was the grid transcription so I asserted all 20 rows are 20 chars, which they were. Deterministic and I trust it, though a single wrong character in the prompt grid would silently change the answer.

Fast doubling Fibonacci mod m, standard and quick. Recursion depth is only about 50 so no issue. Confident.

Tokenized on whitespace, lowercased, stripped attached punctuation and quotes, counted with a Counter. The top three are far ahead of fourth place so no tie-break ambiguity mattered.

Classic JS traps: map passing the index as parseInt radix (92 in base 1 is NaN), var closure capturing the final value 3, float equality failing (I verified 2.4000000000000004 vs 2.4 in IEEE double arithmetic), Math.round(-9.5) rounding toward +Infinity, and -56 % 4 stringifying -0 as 0. No JS runtime installed locally so I relied on careful spec reasoning plus a Python double check for the float part.

20/20 outputs match

The bug was grams accumulating per item without multiplying by qty; on the reported order that reproduced 348 buggy vs 957 fixed exactly, so I am confident in the diagnosis. Ported the JS to Python with care around ceil, the >>3 coupon shift and the express ordering. One scare: a stale orders file in my scratch dir produced wrong results on my first run; I rewrote the 20 orders from the prompt and reran.

12/12 lines match

Standard sort-and-sweep. I initially merged adjacent intervals with a gap of one (s <= end+1) which wrongly combined [1,2] and [3,4]; the spec example caught it, so I reran with touching-only merging (s <= end) and verified the example outputs.

The bundled tests pinned down the bug immediately: an overdraft check used bal <= 0 where the spec says exactly zero is not an overdraft. One-character fix, full test suite then passed and main printed the checksum. This kind of task is very routine for me.

Two bugs here. The tests caught the fee threshold off-by-one (greater than instead of greater-or-equal at 50000), but the second bug, sorting by raw DD/MM/YYYY strings so dates lexicographically misordered, was invisible to the tests, I found it by reading the code against the README. The strongest evidence I got it right is that the sample CSV then printed the expected checksum 5a7c6804.